Chattisgarh High Court
Tukaram Nayak vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 November, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 8035 of 2022
• Tukaram Nayak S/o Gopal Ram Nayak Aged About 55 Years
R/o Village Kodabhatha, Police Station Amlipara, Tahsil
Mainpur, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Rural &
Panchayat Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal
Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Collector Gariyaband, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh
3. Chief Executive Officer Jila Panchayat , Gariyaband, District :
Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh
4. General Administrative Committee Jila Panchayat,
Gariyaband, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh
5. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Mainpur, District :
Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Akash Pandey, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order On Board
29/11/2022
1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order of suspension
dated 23.8.2022 (Annexure P-3) as also appellate order dated
19.10.2022 (Annexure P-1).
2. Considering the fact that period of 90 days from the date of
issuance of suspension order dated 23.8.2022 has already
expired, learned counsel for petitioner submits that at this
stage grievance of petitioner would be redressed if he is
permitted to submit representation before respondent No.3 for
review of his suspension order in light of decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union
of India, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291, and in turn,
respondent No.3 may be directed to consider and decide
representation of petitioner at the earliest.
3. Learned State Counsel submits that as petitioner is not
pressing this petition on merits and only seeking direction for
respondent No.3 to consider and decide representation to be
submitted by petitioner expeditiously, therefore, he is not
having any objection.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents filed along with writ petition.
5. The issue with respect to keeping an employee under
suspension for a period more than 90 days without passing
any further order by the Competent Authority came-up for
consideration before Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ajay
Kumar Choudhary (supra), and it was observed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court that an employee cannot be kept under
suspension for inordinate duration. Relevant paragraph of
said judgment is extracted below for ready reference;-
"21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a
Suspension Order should not extend beyond three
months if within this period the Memorandum of
Charges/ Charge sheet is not served on the
delinquent officer/employee; if the Memorandum of
Charges/ Charge sheet is served a reasoned order
must be passed for the extension of the suspension.
As in the case in hand, the Government is free to
transfer the concerned person to any Department in
any of its offices within or outside the State so as to
sever any local or personal contact that he may
have and which he may misuse for obstructing the
investigation against him. The Government may also
prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling
records and documents till the stage of his having to
prepare his defence. We think this will adequately
safeguard the universally recognized principle of
human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and
shall also preserve the interest of the Government in
the prosecution. We recognize that previous
Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash
proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time
limits to their duration. However, the imposition of a
limit on the period of suspension has not been
discussed in prior case law, and would not be
contrary to the interests of justice. Furthermore, the
direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that
pending a criminal investigation departmental
proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands
superseded in view of the stand adopted by us."
6. As per submission of learned counsel for petitioner, vide order
dated 23.8.2022 petitioner was placed under suspension,
which is not disputed by learned State Counsel, and being so,
period of ninety days from the date of order of suspension
expired on 23.11.2022. Hence, in light of decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary's (supra),
the order of suspension of petitioner needs to be reviewed.
This being the position, I deem it proper to dispose of this writ
petition permitting petitioner to submit representation before
respondent No.3 for review of his suspension order and in
turn, directing respondent No.3 to consider and decide claim
of petitioner expeditiously.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of permitting
petitioner to submit detailed representation before respondent
No.3, within two weeks, raising all the grounds. On receipt of
such representation, respondent No.3 shall consider and
decide the same at the earliest, preferably within a period of
three weeks from the date of receipt of representation along
with copy of this order, keeping in mind decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra).
8. Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
roshan/-
